A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The case of B.P. Hira, Works Manager, Central Railway, Parel, Bombay v. C.M. Pradhan & Ors. concerns the entitlement of certain railway factory employees, particularly timekeepers, to overtime wages under the Factories Act, 1948 and the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1948. The respondents were employed in the time office of the Central Railway Workshop and claimed overtime wages for work performed on Sundays without compensatory weekly holidays. They argued that they were either “workers” under Section 2(1) of the Factories Act and hence entitled to overtime wages under Section 59, or, alternatively, that by virtue of Section 70 of the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, the provisions of the Factories Act (including Section 59) applied to them even if they were not “workers” as defined. The Authority under the Payment of Wages Act upheld the alternative argument, finding that Section 70 made Factories Act provisions applicable to all factory employees notwithstanding their “worker” status. It rejected the employer’s contention that Section 4 of the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act excluded Section 70’s operation. The Supreme Court affirmed this interpretation, holding that Section 70 had a dual effect: it excluded factories from the general scope of the Shops and Establishments Act but expressly extended the Factories Act provisions to all persons employed in factories, including those not technically defined as “workers.” The judgment is significant for clarifying the interplay between the Factories Act and Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, especially on the scope of overtime wage entitlement for employees in factories. It reinforces the legislative intent to extend similar labour welfare benefits to all categories of factory employees.

Keywords: Overtime wages, Factory employees, Factories Act 1948, Bombay Shops and Establishments Act 1948, Section 59, Section 70, Worker definition, Legislative interpretation, Labour welfare, Payment of Wages Act 1936.

B) CASE DETAILS

i) Judgement Cause Title:
B.P. Hira, Works Manager, Central Railway, Parel, Bombay v. C.M. Pradhan & Ors.

ii) Case Number:
Civil Appeals Nos. 131 to 304 of 1957

iii) Judgement Date:
May 8, 1959

iv) Court:
Supreme Court of India

v) Quorum:
B.P. Sinha, P.B. Gajendragadkar, K.N. Wanchoo, JJ.

vi) Author:
Justice P.B. Gajendragadkar

vii) Citation:
1960 (1) SCR 137

viii) Legal Provisions Involved:

• Section 2(1), Section 2(k), Section 59, Section 85 – Factories Act, 1948

• Section 70, Section 4, Section 63 – Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1948

• Section 71(c) – Indian Railways Act, 1890

• Payment of Wages Act, 1936 – Overtime claims under authority jurisdiction

ix) Judgments Overruled by the Case:
None specifically overruled.

x) Case is Related to which Law Subjects:
Labour Law, Industrial Law, Employment Law, Statutory Interpretation, Wage Regulation.

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The dispute originated from claims by timekeepers employed in the Central Railway Workshop at Parel, Bombay. These employees sought overtime wages under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, relying primarily on the Factories Act, 1948. The case raised the complex question of whether persons employed in a factory but not strictly “workers” under Section 2(1) of the Factories Act could still avail overtime benefits provided under Section 59.

The Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1948, specifically Section 70, became pivotal in this legal debate. The respondents argued that Section 70 extended Factories Act benefits to all employees in factories, even if they fell outside the “worker” definition. The appellant employer, however, insisted that such entitlement was restricted to “workers” and that Section 4 of the Bombay Act excluded Section 70’s operation in their case.

The Payment of Wages Authority sided with the employees, prompting the employer to seek special leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

The respondents were timekeepers working in the time office of the Central Railway Workshop. Their duties included maintaining attendance records, preparing paysheets, maintaining leave accounts, processing final settlements, and compiling statistical data.

The key factual elements include:

• They worked on Sundays without being given a holiday within three days before or after, as mandated under Section 52 of the Factories Act.

• They claimed entitlement to double wages for such Sundays under Section 59 of the Factories Act.

• They alternatively claimed the benefit via Section 70 of the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, which they contended applied the Factories Act to all employees in factories.

• The employer disputed both claims, arguing that timekeepers were not “workers” within Section 2(1) and that Section 70 was inapplicable due to Section 4 exemptions.

The Authority found that only four “progress timekeepers” were directly involved in work connected with manufacturing and thus qualified as “workers,” while the others were merely employees of the workshop. Nonetheless, it upheld the alternative claim under Section 70, granting overtime wages for the relevant period.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i. Whether timekeepers employed in a factory but not directly engaged in manufacturing processes qualify as “workers” under Section 2(1) of the Factories Act, 1948.

ii. Whether Section 70 of the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1948 extends the overtime provisions of Section 59 of the Factories Act to all employees in factories, irrespective of their “worker” status.

iii. Whether Section 4 of the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act excludes the operation of Section 70 in relation to railway factory employees.

F) PETITIONER/ APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

i. The counsels for Petitioner / Appellant submitted that the respondents were not “workers” as defined under Section 2(1) of the Factories Act because their duties did not involve direct participation in the manufacturing process or its incidental activities.

ii. They argued that Section 70 of the Bombay Act was inapplicable because Section 4 exempted railway establishments from the operation of the Act, thereby indirectly negating Section 70.

iii. The appellant also contended that the legislative intent was not to equate all employees in factories with “workers” for the purpose of Factories Act benefits.

iv. They maintained that the claim should fail for those not qualifying as “workers” and that the Authority erred in extending the overtime provisions to them.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

i. The counsels for Respondent submitted that the phrase “incidental to, or connected with, the manufacturing process” in Section 2(1) was broad enough to cover timekeepers’ work, making them “workers” for Factories Act purposes.

ii. Alternatively, even if they were not “workers,” Section 70 of the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act clearly applied the Factories Act provisions (including Section 59) to all persons employed in a factory, overriding restrictive definitions.

iii. They argued that Section 4 dealt only with “establishments” and had no bearing on factories; thus, it could not limit Section 70’s operation.

iv. The legislative policy underlying the Bombay Act was to ensure overtime wage entitlement for employees across all work environments, including factories, without discrimination between categories of staff.

H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS

i. Section 2(1), Section 2(k), Section 59, Section 85 – Factories Act, 1948 – Definition of “worker,” meaning of “manufacturing process,” provision for overtime wages, and government power to extend “factory” definition.

ii. Section 70 – Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1948 – Excludes factories from the Act but applies Factories Act provisions to all persons employed therein.

iii. Section 4 – Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1948 – Exemption clause applicable to specified “establishments.”

iv. Section 63 – Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1948 – Overtime wage provision for employees in shops, commercial establishments, etc.

v. Section 71(c) – Indian Railways Act, 1890 – Overtime wages for railway servants (not invoked by respondents).

I) JUDGEMENT

a. RATIO DECIDENDI

The Supreme Court held that:

• Section 70 of the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act operates in two parts: (i) it excludes factories and their employees from the general scope of the Act, and (ii) it expressly applies the relevant provisions of the Factories Act to all such employees, notwithstanding their status under Section 2(1) of the Factories Act.

• The non-obstante clause in Section 70 ensures that even non-“workers” in factories can claim overtime wages under Section 59 of the Factories Act.

• Section 4 of the Bombay Act applies only to “establishments” and has no effect on the application of Section 70 to factories. Even if it did, Section 70’s overriding nature would prevail.

b. OBITER DICTA

The Court observed that the legislative intent of both statutes was to ensure parity in overtime benefits across different categories of employees and that welfare legislation must be interpreted liberally to advance its purpose.

c. GUIDELINES 

• Welfare statutes like the Factories Act and Shops and Establishments Act must be read harmoniously to extend benefits to the widest possible class of employees.

• Non-obstante clauses must be given their full effect to override restrictive definitions where legislative policy so dictates.

J) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

This judgment is a classic example of the Supreme Court adopting a purposive interpretation to further labour welfare objectives. By reading Section 70 expansively, the Court ensured that employees in factories, regardless of whether they met the strict “worker” definition, were entitled to overtime wages under the Factories Act. The case also clarifies the jurisdictional boundaries between the Factories Act and the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, reinforcing that the latter can supplement the former without conflict, provided legislative competence and presidential assent exist.

K) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred:

• B.P. Hira v. C.M. Pradhan, 1960 (1) SCR 137

• Indian Railways Act, 1890, Section 71(c) interpretation cases (not fully applied here)

b. Important Statutes Referred:

• Factories Act, 1948 – Sections 2(1), 2(k), 59, 85

• Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1948 – Sections 4, 63, 70

• Indian Railways Act, 1890 – Section 71(c)

• Payment of Wages Act, 1936